Male Abortion

[Korashk]

Male abortion is a theoretical concept where in in the case of a pregnancy the male side of the equation effectively "aborts" his rights to the child. Meaning that he gives up all of his potential parental rights and doesn't have to pay child support in the event of a pregnancy that he was involved in, but had ultimately no say in.

I personally think that this is something that should be available. Females can choose to abort their children basically whenever they want and not shoulder the burden of a child. However, this option is not available for males. If they don't want the child, then that's too bad according to the law. Pay child support for 18-21 years or face further legal action.

Personally, I don't think that's right.

[Jupiter]

yeah. they did it. they need to pay the price in my opinion.

[Neptune]

I personally believe that abortion should only be used in extreme cases, like danger of mothers health, or, rape, or something like that. I don't think a woman should have an abortion just because she doesn't want the kid. That is unacceptable in my opinion. It's the same for males, a male should take the responsibility and help raise the kid.

[Korashk]

If you're against abortion on principle (which gaging from both your responses you guys are), then this thread isn't for you. Take it to one of the billion regular abortion threads.

[Jupiter]

I can see both sides, don't get me wrong, but, I just don't think people should have sex unless they are willing to take on the consequence. Even the guy, he only has to pay if he won't stay with the mother.

[DerBear]

As stated above the OP clearly does not want to turn this into a debate about "abortion right or wrong" so please lets keep the morals of that kind of deabate out of here.

I can see your point and I am rather unsure about this.

What I think is that it should stay unless extreme circumstances as its not right to get someone pregnant and then go "well hey I dont want a kid so I am going to piss off" sure a female can do this but again this changed her in so many ways, and most respectable women if they did not want a child but the father wanted one they would come to some from of mutual agrement.

Its a tuff one this topic as it is rather hard to say because I feel for both sides of this debate.

So overall I think the current system is good enough. I dunno maybe this debate might tip me to the one side or another, I guess only time will tell

[Short Circuit]

If your man enough to do the deed, then you should also be man enough to stand up to your responsibilities and pay for what you have done. What your proposing (in my opinion), is an easy opt out to make babies, but not pay or take care of them in the future.

[Efflorescence]

I'm pro-life, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that I'm pro-choice.

There are 4 points I want to make:

1)Your 'law' is a form of abuse. A father who does that is guilty of abusing by neglecting his child. He's leaving his child in poverty and emotionally depriving him of love and basic needs.

2)And if you don't care for your son/daughter, then who the hell are you going to care for? We have enough fatherless children who are suffering, already. Just don't make it worse.

3)If you give the right to the father to abandon his duties as a father and don't pay child support, you're gonna have to give that right to the mother as well.
You're going to have to give her the right to neglect her child (not pay, deny the fact that she's the mother as well etc. etc) if you don't want feminists to ruin your existence. And whom will these children have? NO ONE. They will be all alone in the world and I would invite you to explain to them why

4) If those children are not going to be catered for, who will pay for them? These children need to live and grow. Instead of their parents paying for them....US....stupid taxpayers...will have to do it.

The end.

[Fiction]

I'm pro-choice, but a father "aborting" a baby is totally different to a mother aborting it.

A mother has to go through with the pregnancy, which will effect her physically and mentally, and in extreme cases can end in death. Having a child is extremely disruptive to a mother's life. The father has none of these problems.

Also when a mother aborts a baby there is no baby to look after. If a father disowns the child the mother still has the child to look after. He is not getting rid of the baby, he is shifting the responsibility. There's a difference.

[Amaryllis]

He's not the one with a head coming out of his vagina. He's not the one who's going to have something growing inside him for the next 9 months. He's not the one who will have to shoulder the burden of this child.

He can knock someone up and just walk away. She has to keep the sperm he ejaculated into her, the zygote growing inside her. Sure, she can abort. But, from what I've seen, a lot of people are pro-life. He knocked her up, he's gotta take responsibility.

He contributed to it. The woman shouldn't be carrying all of this on her own. Yes, I do feel horribly sorry for him - especially if he isn't financially or emotionally capable of supporting the child. But, leaving the woman there to fend for herself? That's just not right.

Contraception goes both ways. What if he didn't use a condom? What if he used an expired condom? It's your child, too. Why can't the woman just dump her kid on the street and say "Hey, I didn't ask for this. I will not take responsibility."

I think you're talking about America here, but, abortion has not been legalised everywhere. It still is illegal in most places. Are you just going to walk away and leave the woman to support and have that child you helped create and be free to go while her rights are violated and her control over her body - gone?

You have a responsibility.

[Korashk]

3)If you give the right to the father to abandon his duties as a father and don't pay child support, you're gonna have to give that right to the mother as well.
This is the only one of your points I think I need to address. The mother already has this option. It's called abortion. Hence the advocating of male abortion. It's not like they'd be able to make this decision after the child is born.

I'd think that having this option would make the amount of abortions rise, because child support would no longer be a given. Overall, I think people having less children is a good thing.

The father has none of these problems.
True, however the father also has absolutely no legal say in pregnancy. You knock your girlfriend up and she has the baby, you have to take care of that child in some form or another whether or not you want to. For those that don't, that's portion of their paycheck gone every paycheck for 18+ years.

He can knock someone up and just walk away. She has to keep the sperm he ejaculated into her, the zygote growing inside her. Sure, she can abort. But, from what I've seen, a lot of people are pro-life. He knocked her up, he's gotta take responsibility.
Regardless of how many people are pro-choice, women have the right to have an abortion and they do not have "to keep the sperm he ejaculated into her".

He contributed to it. The woman shouldn't be carrying all of this on her own. Yes, I do feel horribly sorry for him - especially if he isn't financially or emotionally capable of supporting the child. But, leaving the woman there to fend for herself? That's just not right.
Regardless of what's right or wrong, women have all of the legal cards when it comes to raising children. What this does is evens the playing field.

Why can't the woman just dump her kid on the street and say "Hey, I didn't ask for this. I will not take responsibility."
They can in a lot of places in America.

I think you're talking about America here,
Yep, and any place where regular abortion is legal.

Also when a mother aborts a baby there is no baby to look after. If a father disowns the child the mother still has the child to look after. He is not getting rid of the baby, he is shifting the responsibility. There's a difference.
I think you're also thinking that they would be able to do this after the baby is born. Which is not the case. Hypothetically, unless they "aborted" the baby before its birth, they'd still be legally responsible for it. It's not shifting the responsibility so much as giving males the same option that females have.

[Fiction]

This is the only one of your points I think I need to address. The mother already has this option. It's called abortion. Hence the advocating of male abortion. It's not like they'd be able to make this decision after the child is born.

I'd think that having this option would make the amount of abortions rise, because child support would no longer be a given. Overall, I think people having less children is a good thing.

What about if the mother found out she was pregnant too late to abort it? Could the father just fuck off then? The mother wouldn't have that option...

[Korashk]

What about if the mother found out she was pregnant too late to abort it? Could the father just fuck off then? The mother wouldn't have that option...
There are at least 14 states where late-term abortions are legal without any additional provisions.

EDIT: Plus, the purpose of this concept is to give equal rights to genders. Male abortion would equal female abortion if it were instituted.

[huginnmuninn]

i can think of two cases where i could see reasoning for this.

1. if a woman wanted a child to raise it but didnt want a man to be involved other than the obvious parts where he would have to be involved (sex) then yes i would agree that the man should have no legal or financial responsibilities to the child.

2. if the man doesnt have the right to see the child through some sort of split custody and doesnt ever get to know the child. then he shouldnt have to be responsible for the child.

[georgiamay]

Can I just say that calling it "male abortion" is misleading. It's more like he's disowning his child.

An abortion is where the pregnancy is terminated, and there is no baby afterwards. With this, there is a baby, but the father just gives up his parental rights.

I think this is a stupid idea. If the mother decides to abort the baby, fine, the father has nothing to worry about if he doesn't want anything to do with it. But if she keeps it and he still wants nothing to do with it, tough. It takes two people to get a woman pregant, and he was one of them. She has to live with the consequences, and so should he. If he could easily give up his responsibilities, the mother would be completely alone, which is unfair as she wasn't the only person that caused this to happen. Mothers can't do this. Sure, they could abort the baby, but if you're saying that men should be able to give up their responsibilities, then women should be able to as well.

Personally, I don't think either of them should give up their responsibilities. The woman can have an abortion, but if they decide not to, it's both of their problem. After all, it's his DNA in there too.

[Jupiter]

If you're against abortion on principle (which gaging from both your responses you guys are), then this thread isn't for you. Take it to one of the billion regular abortion threads.

Pardon me, this is ROTW, isn't it? We can argue things we want. :P

[Neptune]

Pardon me, this is ROTW, isn't it? We can argue things we want. :P


Debating whether female abortion is right is not the point of the discussion, that's why he doesn't want us here. It's his thread, we should respect that and just leave.

[Amaryllis]

This is the only one of your points I think I need to address. The mother already has this option. It's called abortion. Hence the advocating of male abortion. It's not like they'd be able to make this decision after the child is born.

I'd think that having this option would make the amount of abortions rise, because child support would no longer be a given. Overall, I think people having less children is a good thing.

True, however the father also has absolutely no legal say in pregnancy. You knock your girlfriend up and she has the baby, you have to take care of that child in some form or another whether or not you want to. For those that don't, that's portion of their paycheck gone every paycheck for 18+ years.
What about the mother? Though you say she has the choice to get that abortion and you think we shouldn't get into the pro-choice/pro-life argument, the fact is, tons of people think abortions are immoral and just wrong. Probably more than half of the world's population thinks so.

Making a woman support the child all on her own is pretty much forcing her to get an abortion or starve and die. The point is, women tend to feel much more attached to their children than men are. I mean, it's inside you. She's the one doing the "murder", not you. Do you know what a heavy burden that would be on her? A lot of women regard abortion as destroying a life. They think the child hasn't done anything wrong and doesn't deserve it.

If she does so choose to have that child, and the man doesn't even lift a finger or offer some many of the child -he helped create-. Well, god knows how she and her child will survive. What if it's a teenage pregnancy? What if her parents kick her out? What if she isn't financially, emotionally or physically capable of having that child? Leaving her and her baby on their own would make it even worse.

What happened to equality? Why should men be allowed to walk away when the woman can't?

8Regardless of how many people are pro-choice, women have the right to have an abortion and they do not have "to keep the sperm he ejaculated into her".
She's not just keeping the sperm the man, himself, put into her. She's keeping a human inside her. A human that is half yours. You have a responsibility here.

It's not shifting the responsibility so much as giving males the same option that females have.
The man isn't killing anyone or anything. He isn't going to have the weight of an abortion on his shoulders. All that zygote is to some men is a sperm cell of his. To the woman, it's her child. He hasn't felt what the mother has. He's not doing anything to his body.

This isn't giving men the same option women have. It's allowing them to not face the consequences of their actions or hold any responsibility.

[Genghis Khan]

>open abortion thread
>expect nothing more than ad hominem arguments

[embers]

I think one crucial issue with this is that when a female aborts, both parents lose the responsibility of bearing a child. With male abortions, the female still has the responsibility of bringing him/her up.

[Efflorescence]

This is the only one of your points I think I need to address. The mother already has this option. It's called abortion. Hence the advocating of male abortion. It's not like they'd be able to make this decision after the child is born.

I'd think that having this option would make the amount of abortions rise, because child support would no longer be a given. Overall, I think people having less children is a good thing.

Ok, so basically the father makes this decision before the child is born. And as a result, the woman aborts the baby...you said it yourself that the number of abortions would rise.

Basically, you will be leaving the mother with NO CHOICE but to abort the baby, indirectly the father is telling her 'abort the baby because there's a law that says that I can abandon my child emotionally and financially'...what is so 'pro-choice' about that, korashk?

And I know that maybe you ignored this point but let us assume that the woman decides to keep the baby regardless. (After all, pro-choicers like you argue that it's her choice, right? ). Someone has to take care of the child. You cannot let him starve. Who will do that? Doesn't the child have rights too? How can you enact a law that makes it easier for a father to abandon his own child, a law that makes it easier for the child's rights (to have food and a decent life), to be violated? Forgive me if I cannot understand your reasoning here.

I know it's hard on the father but the child is his after all. Your law would increase the no. of not only abortions but also poverty and the no. of children in orphanages. I wonder if that's such a good thing.

[AllThatYouDreamed]

I thought he just needs to not sign the baby's birth certificate, and he's pretty much wiped of all repsonciblity?

I'm torn. on the one hand he shouldn't *have* to, on the other I think it's his reponciblity to.

If this was gonna be passed into law, I'd probably vote for it, because they're both to "blame", if you will, for having the baby. Either or both could've used birth control. Both have opritunities to back out of raising it

[Jean Poutine]

If they don't want the child, then that's too bad according to the law. Pay child support for 18-21 years or face further legal action.

Except that you're wrong. It can really go either way.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/litigation/ch04.html

[Rawwwrr]

I think it's a matter of fairness.

Say you have sex with your girlfriend. She explicitly tells you that you don't need a condom because she's on the pill.


Whoops, turns out she lied. Now she's pregnant with your kid.


Your options:


A) Father a child you never wanted and who was lied into existence


B) Pay child support for 18 years


C) Kill yourself




Those are your options. No you cannot choose to not be a father. No you cannot make her have an abortion. No you cannot make her give it up for adoption. It is her choice - your opinion is irrelevant. It's what she wants that matters, regardless of how big an impact on your life her choice makes.

[Thanatos]

Making a woman support the child all on her own is pretty much forcing her to get an abortion or starve and die.


This part I had to respond to as it is just ignorant. Way to ignore all the single mothers in the world who get by just fine.

As to the argument at hand, I agree there should be some way that the man be able to give up all legal responsibility and right to the child. As to all these people saying the mothers can't get an abortion because of their beliefs or w/e, thats their choice, not mine. Why should I have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for someone else's choice?

Also, think of the reverse, where the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but the man wants the child. The guys screwed, nothing he could do to save his own flesh and blood. Oh well.

[Hajara22]

Women do hold all the cards when it comes to kids. I would agree because a woman can decide she wants to keep the child or not regardless of how the man feels. So even if he didnt want a child he has one. 18 years of child support... i actually know someone who pays child support and has made many attempts to see his child but the mother said no everytime. always some excuse to say no. so that child is growing up calling god knows who dad when he true father wants to be a part of her life. So i say yes. level the playing field...

[wowisawesome]

Male abortion is a theoretical concept where in in the case of a pregnancy the male side of the equation effectively "aborts" his rights to the child. Meaning that he gives up all of his potential parental rights and doesn't have to pay child support in the event of a pregnancy that he was involved in, but had ultimately no say in.

I personally think that this is something that should be available. Females can choose to abort their children basically whenever they want and not shoulder the burden of a child. However, this option is not available for males. If they don't want the child, then that's too bad according to the law. Pay child support for 18-21 years or face further legal action.

Personally, I don't think that's right.


So it's ok for a woman to murder her child but it's not ok if the man disowns it?

[antiabort]

>open abortion thread
>expect nothing more than ad hominem arguments

Rules 1 and 2 faggot

Anyway, I think it is perfectly fair for the man to opt out of parenthood, after all, a woman can.

[Syvelocin]

^ Eh. I don't think it's actually really the same thing to say it's fair. The men get to fuck them while the women have to suffer for it slightly more. Pregnancy is not fun, it's a complete bitch and a miracle at the same time. I don't know. Fucking the mother and then saying "Nope, I'm opting myself out," I don't think that sends the right message. Of course, women do the same, but they're giving up a tiny bit more distress than the man is.

I don't think the woman should have complete total control seeing as it's half his baby but it's most certainly not the same situation.

[Sporadica]

If a man doesn't want to be a father he's a scumbag deadbeat dad whereas if a woman wants to not be the mother than she's pro choice. I smell bullshit.

I think if a man doesn't want to pay right off that bat then don't let him. I lean more towards communism in the sense that the gov't should step in and take care of the kid.

[Amaryllis]

EDIT: Sorry, guys. I wasn't aware men -had- to pay child support and couldn't just walk away where y'all were. I thought we were arguing about the morals of abandoning your pregnant wife and child. And I don't live in America - abortion is illegal here.

This part I had to respond to as it is just ignorant. Way to ignore all the single mothers in the world who get by just fine.
And many women today still suffer from discrimination, are made to be prostitutes so they can send their brothers to school and are practically sold off to 50 year old men. Not to mention that many single mothers -don't- get by just fine on their own. The child is half yours, if you didn't want a kid you should have thought twice before sticking your penis into her vagina.

As to the argument at hand, I agree there should be some way that the man be able to give up all legal responsibility and right to the child. As to all these people saying the mothers can't get an abortion because of their beliefs or w/e, thats their choice, not mine. Why should I have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for someone else's choice?

Also, think of the reverse, where the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy but the man wants the child. The guys screwed, nothing he could do to save his own flesh and blood. Oh well.
If you knock someone up, you should take responsibility. If you bought a shitty condom and it broke during sex, you should take responsibility.

And lol. "Flesh and blood." Nice one there. The baby -is- your flesh and blood. You can disown it but regardless, the child is still half yours. The very big difference between male and female abortion is: If a woman aborts, both the man and woman are freed of their duties but if a man aborts, the woman is still responsible.

Women do hold all the cards when it comes to kids. I would agree because a woman can decide she wants to keep the child or not regardless of how the man feels. So even if he didnt want a child he has one. 18 years of child support...So i say yes. level the playing field...
Of course the woman can decide whether or not to keep the child regardless of what the man wants - it's her body! He's not the one who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy and 24 hours of labour now, is he?

And do you not think the woman should definitely have a say in whether the father pays child support or not? Because she is, after all, going to have to take on full responsibility for the child were the man to abort his rights.

And what does that teach men? Fuck as many women as you'd like without a condom! It ain't gonna effect you :yeah:

So it's ok for a woman to murder her child but it's not ok if the man disowns it?
One woman could call her fertilised egg a child, name it and view it with affection and another could be repulsed by it, unable to refer to it as anything other than a thing. But abortion's a whole new argument that has already been discussed quite thoroughly.

Not to mention, you seem to regard abortion quite lightly. Quoting F.I., Skokie, "No woman chooses abortion lightly. If it is a devastating experience for a man who`s only contribution is the sperm, words cannot be found to describe the agony a woman goes through when she must cut out the life that is growing within her."

If a man doesn't want to be a father he's a scumbag deadbeat dad whereas if a woman wants to not be the mother than she's pro choice. I smell bullshit.
I smell bullshit in your statement.

Persons who are for abortion are called "Pro-choice", not women specifically. Anyhow, many women who are for abortion are called murderers as well.
So it's ok for a woman to murder her child
Hey look, we have one who believes as such right here.

I think if a man doesn't want to pay right off that bat then don't let him.
Were a woman to get an abortion - both parties would have their duties lifted. Were a man to abort, the woman would still hold the responsibility.

I lean more towards communism in the sense that the gov't should step in and take care of the kid.
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/store/communism.jpg

[Jean Poutine]

I recommend watching Boston legal, season 4 episode 12 about this. It's called Roe v Wade, The Musical. It's actually pretty interesting how they set it up.

[sammy1996]

If your man enough to do the deed, then you should also be man enough to stand up to your responsibilities and pay for what you have done. What your proposing (in my opinion), is an easy opt out to make babies, but not pay or take care of them in the future.

Oh how i hate 13 years old saying things like this, when you're older and its you in the shit heap that might be in a situation like this it would be totally different

[ImCoolBeans]

Please don't bump old threads :locked: